JimW-203

JimW-203

Lives in United States Tarpon Springs, FL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jun 4, 2011
About me:

I have been doing photography since the early 50s while in school and later traveling the world in a variety of positions in the government and private industry. Moved from Boston to Florida in 1988; first, St. Petersburg then Orlando, and now, Tarpon Springs.

Comments

Total: 314, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

noflashplease: Kodachrome was a lousy film with a quirky process. Does anyone in their right mind want to bring back horrifically complex K-14 processing?

Slide film lost to negative film long before the end of the film era, and Kodachrome was unspeakably bad in terms of quirky color rendition. If I despised Ektachrome, Kodachrome was worse in every respect.

At this point, if someone still want to play with slide film, Fujifilm Velvia was much better in quality than anything that Kodak ever produced.

For normal people, Fujifilm's Superia color negative film is professional quality film stock at an amateur price, although those prices keep creeping up. Kodak fell behind Fujifilm in the 1990s, and quite frankly, I really can't see any reason to buy Kodak film, other than "Buy American" patriotic sentimentality, or nostalgic "lomography" style low fi photography.

How many songs have been written memorializing Velvia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpaNJqF4po

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

seragram: Everybody know Cannon is industry standard for weddings. And Nikkon second choice. That was good addvise. Mirirles people take a shill pil. OLO

...and everybody should know that, in seragram's world as in the article, correct spelling is irrelevant and obsolete.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: Why does it say "Warning: Graphic Image" in red on the black rectangle, where the image should be? I mean this is in no way a graphic image. There is no blood, no nudity, no violence - just a guy standing with a gun and another guy laying on the ground.

Is this just sensationalism?

To quote Will B Milner
"Docno - You're applying subjective attributes to the words graphic and explicit. They don't automatically mean blood, gore and violence.
But you're right these images are all too common... desensitising us to an extent, thus devaluing the severity of terrible events. It's sad really."

Perhaps your senses have been dulled by too many violent video games. Or, are you one of the many "fans" who are disappointed when there are no disasters occurring during an auto race? A human being actually died just moments before this picture was taken and that is HIS "body laying on the ground" (note: try the word 'lying' next time). Had it been yours would you expect the same level of disinterest from those viewing the picture?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: Was silent shutter used?

...and this is important why? Even if true, it's unlikely the mirror slap cooperated. Or would you have locked it up?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 09:03 UTC
In reply to:

pwmoree: What is the underlying table made of???

Particleboard

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 18:09 UTC
On article Affinity Photo beta now available for Windows (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: good..... adobe needs to lose it´s market position some day.

Stefan,
While I agree with you, buying a private company is somewhat more difficult than a public one that is active in the equities market. However, it all comes down to Adobe's assessment of Serif's value to them. If they think Serif is a nuisance or holds a patent that Adobe thinks would aid them with some product or group of products and Adobe wants it enough to buy it rather than build it (and they could get past the potential of a Patent infringement) they may just try to either buy the company or the patent or license the patent. It would then come down to Serif's assessment of the opportunity value of all that cash against the potential revenue stream in the near future; X million Dollars today may look much better than Y millions (maybe) over the next 5-10 years. Without knowing the personalities of the parties involved and how many hands in Serif's pot I would not posit a guess as to what (or how much) it would take for Serif's owners to "take the money and run."

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

tt321: Did not say anything about compatibility (or not - I guess not) with focus bracketing.

I know that; where do you set the time between exposures for each exposure in the sequence? By that I mean how do you tell the camera to wait X seconds between each exposure? I don't think changing the charging time on a flash will do that.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 21:39 UTC
On article Affinity Photo beta now available for Windows (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: good..... adobe needs to lose it´s market position some day.

This will happen only if someone with humongous pockets is willing to dig in them for tons of money. They will need to support an incredible development effort with a wealth of talented personnel; give them input from working professionals and facilities that enhance the process. Then, they will need to put even more money into marketing. Key to getting adoption will include putting still more money into flooding the professional market with free software and outstanding support, topping it off with heavy weight evangelists from every discipline Adobe impacts. Finally, all this will be for nought if the product is not significantly better than every corresponding product from Adobe.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

tt321: Did not say anything about compatibility (or not - I guess not) with focus bracketing.

Gee! Why didn't I think of that? Now, I really must hone my Jedi Mind to make bugs stay still. Subjects can be so uncooperative, can't they? Can you also clue me in on those cameras that are compatible with this flash that have the facility to define the time between exposures with in-body focus bracketing or focus stacking?

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

tt321: Did not say anything about compatibility (or not - I guess not) with focus bracketing.

"...depending on the distance & output power level needed) so that each frame gets the same light, exposure." But also dependent on the rate at which the body triggers each exposure in the bracketing or stitching sequence. If the flash doesn't recharge in time for each exposure in sequence it matters not - it just won't fire and that exposure goes for nought.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 05:45 UTC
In reply to:

tt321: Did not say anything about compatibility (or not - I guess not) with focus bracketing.

You are right: Stack - Merge. Same difference - however, Stack - bracket. not the same

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

tt321: Did not say anything about compatibility (or not - I guess not) with focus bracketing.

I am confused, why would you be merging the images if you were focus bracketing. Wouldn't that be the same as stacking?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

eNdie: Will this be usable with the in-body focus stacking?

If its recycle rate can keep up with the shutter sequencing and its not locked out during stacking, I can't see why not.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 21:57 UTC

I can see a return to the days of Dodge City and Wyatt Earp... A sign at the door that says: "Film Only, Check Your Pixels Here."

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 20:53 UTC as 14th comment

Among the long list of alternatives, one might add one of the longest-running entries: Picture Window Pro (now on 7) a Windows-only offering that has been around since 1993. One may download a fully operational and complete copy free as 30 day trial. See: http://dl-c.com/
For a more complete summary of its capabilities from Norman Koren, a professional-level user of the program, see: http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html
For those in the Boulder Colorado area now til September 30, 2016, and exhibition of his work is on display at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; if you like landscapes, check it out. While a professional-level user, his profession is very heavily embedded in the realm of imaging sciences. See: http://www.imatest.com/ and within it - http://www.imatest.com/about/#Team

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 05:03 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Pitchertaker: So you give me something for free but I'm not allowed to sell it?

You may borrow a book from a library, but that gives you no right to sell it. Also, is it your contention that Getty Images represents the Library of Congress and the people of the United States? Were they in any way acting as an arm of the library? If so, where's our cut?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 06:37 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

JosephScha: Re: "So which one should you buy?" Really? Is that the purpose of the info presented on dpreview? I hope not. Using phrases like that will bring out all the people who think Amazon has influenced content, to say "see? See? I told you so!".

Other than supporting buying decisions, what rationale should lead an organization to publish product reviews and comparisons? Even a publication such as Consumer Reports that proudly proclaims its non-commercial and unbiased reportage still acknowledges its audience as Consumers. (even though I have never taken their reviews of cameras too seriously)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

Skyscape: I'm betting that greater than 98% of the "photographers" existing now wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a good photo with this camera.

"How many autofocus points does it have?"

"OMG OMG the images are not super-razor sharp!" We all know the definition of a good photo is sharpness now.

"Does it shoot 4K video?"

"Where do you insert the memory card and battery?"

"Can I return it to the seller if, after 'testing' the camera I find the lens to have some silly 'flaws' that only I can see because I am a super-professional photographer that requires their lenses to be NASA-quality perfect, so as to shoot flowers and brick walls in my back yard."

"I don't know why sharpness has become the most important thing nowadays."
Because, I believe, it is one of the few things about a photograph that can be quantified and a numerical value applied. I cannot recall anyone ever saying to me "that image produces 79% more emotional content than this one." It may actually insulate the observer from ever having to express a feeling.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

Skyscape: I'm betting that greater than 98% of the "photographers" existing now wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a good photo with this camera.

"How many autofocus points does it have?"

"OMG OMG the images are not super-razor sharp!" We all know the definition of a good photo is sharpness now.

"Does it shoot 4K video?"

"Where do you insert the memory card and battery?"

"Can I return it to the seller if, after 'testing' the camera I find the lens to have some silly 'flaws' that only I can see because I am a super-professional photographer that requires their lenses to be NASA-quality perfect, so as to shoot flowers and brick walls in my back yard."

"Skyscape - I'm betting that greater than 98% of the "photographers" existing now wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a good photo with this camera."
Somewhat funny (to me at least) that so many "like" the idea that readers here might admit to their inability to use what is, in reality, a very simple camera. To think, for decades users of this type of camera were able to produce some of the most memorable images of the twentieth century.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
In reply to:

Rand52: I have a one-owner Nikon FTN black body with the separate motor drive (had to be fitted to the unit) like the one used in the movie "Z" in the 60's. It has the cloth shutter as well so maybe they are not as rare as people think. I got mine in 1969. I know that they only made a few of the motor drive models at the time. Serial # 7126083

Not quite: see http://www.destoutz.ch/typ_production_data_f.html

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
Total: 314, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »